The impacts of training and practice in clown therapy on the sociocommunicative skills of healthcare students and professionals: a cross-sectional observational study

Abstract Background Since the time of Hippocrates, clowns have been perceived as beneficial to patients’ healing processes. In 1908, the first report of in-hospital clown therapy was documented, and over time this practice expanded across healthcare institutions, enabling healthcare students and professionals to volunteer in such initiatives. Although studies have explored the impact of clown therapy on target populations receiving the intervention, little is known about its effects on those who practice it, particularly healthcare students and professionals and their sociocommunicative skills. Methods This was a cross-sectional study including healthcare students and/or professionals affiliated with Centro Universitário São Camilo, divided into two groups: individuals who are or were active members of the Narizes de Plantão extension project and those who never had contact with the initiative. Data were collected through an online self-assessment questionnaire — the Medical Communication Behavior Questionnaire (MCBQ) — using Likert-scale responses. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 22.0, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results A total of 57 participants was included: 32 in Group 1 (clowns) and 25 in Group 2 (non-clowns). The mean age in Group 1 was 29.1 years ± 7.34, compared to 25 years ± 5.08 in Group 2. Most participants self-identified as White (81%), female (89.4%), and affiliated with Medicine (55.2%). After controlling analysis for age and number of semesters completed, Group 1 obtained higher mean scores across all sociocommunicative domains, with statistical significance specially in Understanding and Friendly Relationship (p = 0,022). Conclusion Clown therapy participants rated themselves as possessing stronger sociocommunicative abilities, particularly in Understanding and Friendly Relationship domains. Potential self-assessment and online questionnaire biases must be considered, as well as the need for further research including control groups.